h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A TV programme ('reality' type) a few years ago showed people going into workplaces under the pretences of some TV show, and doing mischief instead. This was their aim. In the minds of these, people I suppose, they were embarking on something great but in fact they were just being silly until they were sacked.

In our country (UK) the less serious drugs are usually done for the sake of it, to be mischievous. This is an attempt at freedom when the person believes that decency was invented by some authority they cannot get along with, such as parents in the beginning, and probably for very good reasons. When those authorities are convincingly decent, there will be anti-moral reactions to them as a matter of course. Drugs tolerated, is like a drug itself. Whatever they may be in mystical cultures, the reasons for use are different here.

When people get something for nothing or for little, it can go much further in their minds than the real value. Even if the real value is only £1.

In TV advertising and other media the 'dark side' is used to pull at kids. The whole thing isn't new though, as Mischief Night has been a national day for a long time, even if only passed on by corrupt parents and children. It is routine and fits in with the other days in our calendar, that have flavour of some sort.

In reality 'dark side' is just some things done wrong. In the immature mind and in the speech of corrupts, it is a whole world. I wrote about this in a work once, showing the contrast between the concepts of a) the world; and b) 'the world'. The former you will find described in vast detail in the non-fiction sections of libraries, and the latter you won't find there, except possibly in subsections of sections such as psychology. That contradiction goes on in broad daylight, and doesn't make people flinch. Comments such as "I'm no angel!" don't cause a stir either, except from the enlightened atheist.

The inflated idea of 'Dark Side' and resulting mess, needs a proper entry in the H2G2. I'm not sure I'm the person to write it. A Star Wars romanticiser isn't the right person either.

I'm trying to figure out how Mischief Night could become a national day. Confusing days with nights would be harmless for most of us, but deadly for a vampire.

Good stuff!

But in case of doubt the official status, it is just not spoken about and passed on by the usual sources.

I think some of the early psychologists like Freud and Jung went into the different levels of self. Freud's Id might be the dark side. Jung thought of it as a shadow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)

In the 80s and 90s there are pop groups that took their material from dark imagery -- Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/music/is-heavy-metal-really-the-devils-music-6622342

There are defensive acts done in certain settings, and excused as "by any means!" or "any way I can!" if ever discussed. Those would be eagerly added to the simple list, which is fantasied about as a catalogue. In the TV programme I mentioned firstly, one of those two people described 'dark side' as a catalogue. The boss he was abusing stated "you fxxx about". No catalogue.

Most murders are committed in desperation. A criminal is someone who rejects constructive skills and commits crimes, whereas many people imprisoned are skilled people, have strength, and took a risk and were caught. Skilled or professional, not dark. The real criminal may learn skills also but their whole sets do not amount to a catalogue. The desire to believe in 'dark side' I think is neurotic. Wanting things easier is perfectly sane.

Searching for a comprehensive explanation of reality takes rather a lot of work. The dark side is but one component of personality, and it exists in relationship to other sides. It would be easy for the young and inexperienced to think that they could choose just one aspect of their personality and focus on it. Later in life, they may well rethink things.

Ask yourself whether classic films would have as much punch without the bad guys -- the witch in "Wizard of Oz," the Joker in "Batman," etc. Why would the good guys need to exist if there were non villains to beat?

No, we don't need monsters. This is due to a very sadly misaligned culture. That usually believes that only a few are self motivated. To promote that should be a crime.

Creation and popularisation of a 'dark side' is further reaching than personal weaknesses and corruption. The idea is the same as the creation of a 'thing' from the concept of evil. Rebranded. It describes a component as you say, but in a fixed sense. Nearly all of Christianity is dishonest on this. Not that any other religion is better. It is the hurried, cowardly, yes I dare say - right wing view. The right wing needs religion and 'dark side' or 'evil' as beings, because the right wing is hurried and needs naivety.

Pre-Christian culture had monsters, too. Odysseus had cyclopses, the ancient Israelites believed that an evil snake was in the Garden of Eden, and as for ancient Babylon, remember the starring role that Gozer had in "Ghostbusters." That's for starters.

Technically, it's possible to tell a good story with no monsters or really evil entities. To get any kind of readership or audience, though, you need top-of-the-shelf talent.

You're welcome to try to buck the odds by creating such a story.

One more thing: you're making Christianity into a villainous entity
in the previous post. This is pretty much inevitable. It's common to argue that you can be right only if there are others who are wrong. That's a zero-sum game mindset. Not that I totally disagree with your characterization of Christianity. A church official is said to have drawn a line on the map of Europe, separating Christian from non-Christian areas, with the explanation "We are right, and they are wrong." The Roman Catholic Church is very determined to enforce its boundaries. If a local priest reads some Buddhist literature and decides that some of it makes sense, chances are before long he will be defrocked. This is the context for our time and place.

Getting beyond the zero sum game takes a lot of reflection on what is real in this world. In "seven habits of effective people," there's a strong argument for working toward win-win situations. I like that approach myself. But I also enjoy hating Voldemort and lots of other baddies.

Such a story... yes there aren't enough about happy experiences. The reclaiming of shreds of peace of mind after fictional disasters, is no good. Especially when some 'celebs' are the recipients (film called San Andreas!). News programmes show how brainwashed people are on this. Radio Times published an article on it also... "Diet of Disaster!" and another title "Here's the news! You DON'T like it!"

I've forgotten what this is about now, very busy these seconds I have spare.

Anc Christianity - we need the real left wing, not the right wing version. Out with the church. Many church-goers have shared this view throughout the history of those enlightened. Church is right wing version of Left wing.

There's a Gordian knot regarding the Christian church. Many of the things Jesus said are great. Thomas Jefferson collected jesus' sayings and published it in a little booklet. If you focus on Jesus' wisdom, you get a view through a window into a land of kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and exhortations to live up to the best that's in your nature. But if you look at Jesus as a very good but ordinary man, you'll have trouble getting people motivated to follow his example. Enter the Romans, who were fond of extending the influence of their leaders by declaring them to be gods. It's not surprising that the Romanization of Christianity was based on making Jesus into not just a god, the *the* God. Along the way, Jesus' gratitude to and admiration for some remarkable women who helped him got toned down. If Jesus' circle was more feminist than most, then Roman society needed to assert its patriarchal muscle. Saint Paul, a Roman citizen who had a very good classical education famously said "mulieres in ecclesiis taceant" [women must be silent in church].

Christianity and Roman culture were not a good partnership, but the kernel of wisdom in Christ's words was retained, offering a reward to those who might not be too fussy about the patriarchal stuff. Women were appeased by Mariology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology

In the late 19490s, a treasure trove of ancient documents from early Christianity was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt. In them, we find a gospel of Mary Magdalene, among others. Jesus seems to have wanted the disciples to accept Mary Magdalene as their leader after his death. Given the stodginess of disciples like Peter and the strongarming of Saint Paul, that had no chance of happening. Oh, well.

Some cultures simply accept as given that the dark side and the light side are but two halves of the self, and must be kept in balance in order to keep the world from disaster.
http://lisalyle.com/meet-kali-dark-goddess-of-the-light/